From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

I refer you to the News of the World article date 1896 which carried an interview with Detective Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the Kelly crime scene

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is a familiar enough quote Trevor, but what Reid doesn't tell the reporter is he was only personally involved in the cases of Tabram, Stride, & McKenzie, all of which were simple murder & mutilation cases which did not include organ removal.
Insp. Reid is therefore speaking of his own personal experience.

[Trevor Marriott]

I suppose you are familiar with the following statement made about a murder scene by Dr Francis A. Harris, citing Dr C.A. Hebbert, an associate of Dr Bond, as his source?

He wrote:

In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room

That statement is hearsay !!!!!!!!!!!!

It should also be noted that following the post mortem as has previously been mentioned several Doctors and Police officers revisited the crime scene, for what purpose is unclear. It is suggested that this was to examine the contents of the fire grate, as it was believed that perhaps body parts had been burnt by the killer. However, Dr Hebbert was not one of those and so what if anything was found during that visit must remain a mystery, because all he does is corroborate Bonds ambiguous post mortem report.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[spyglass]

I have often wondered if the police tried keeping the removal of Mary's heart back from the press/public. We know it was widely reported that Kate's kidney had been removed and not found, and of course we have the Lusk letter from mid Oct on which we are still debating if it was a hoax or not today. If the police where not sure themselves and Mary's heart was later posted with a message, the police could determine with a fair amount of certainty that correspondence would be genuine. Plus they could compare the writing to the Lusk letter and other mail, thus possibly obtaining vital clues.

Just a thought Darryl

Hi,
I have thought this for a long time, Heart aside, I think the murder of MJK was treated differently from the other victims, and that quite a few things were held back from the press .....and all probably lost now.

Regards

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

While I'm of the same opinion, Trevor's opinion differs and he sees the report as only indicating that the heart was absent from the chest cavity, not absent from the room. While I think that is contrary to the context, where the placement of the organs is being listed (they are all "absent from the body" after all), Trevor's of a different mind. When people diverge at such a fundamental level there is little point to debating interpretations that follow because the evidence itself is not agreed upon and so both are working from different starting points making it hardly surprising when both parties end up at different conclusions.

- Jeff

I suppose you are familiar with the following statement made about a murder scene by Dr Francis A. Harris, citing Dr C.A. Hebbert, an associate of Dr Bond, as his source?

He wrote:

In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room

[Sunny Delight]

I have often wondered if the police tried keeping the removal of Mary's heart back from the press/public. We know it was widely reported that Kate's kidney had been removed and not found, and of course we have the Lusk letter from mid Oct on which we are still debating if it was a hoax or not today. If the police where not sure themselves and Mary's heart was later posted with a message, the police could determine with a fair amount of certainty that correspondence would be genuine. Plus they could compare the writing to the Lusk letter and other mail, thus possibly obtaining vital clues.

Just a thought Darryl

Yes it is an interesting thought and something very much in keeping with modern day techniques of withholding information that only the killer would know.

[JeffHamm]

Let us not forget that according to Dr Bond:

the abdominal cavity [was] emptied of its viscera ... The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.

Dr Bond did not report that the heart was found, nor state where it was found.

I suggest that, contrary to Trevor Marriott's assertion, what Bond wrote about the heart's absence was not ambiguous at all.

Hi PI,

While I'm of the same opinion, Trevor's opinion differs and he sees the report as only indicating that the heart was absent from the chest cavity, not absent from the room. While I think that is contrary to the context, where the placement of the organs is being listed (they are all "absent from the body" after all), Trevor's of a different mind. When people diverge at such a fundamental level there is little point to debating interpretations that follow because the evidence itself is not agreed upon and so both are working from different starting points making it hardly surprising when both parties end up at different conclusions.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Let us not forget that according to Dr Bond:

the abdominal cavity [was] emptied of its viscera ... The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.

Dr Bond did not report that the heart was found, nor state where it was found.

I suggest that, contrary to Trevor Marriott's assertion, what Bond wrote about the heart's absence was not ambiguous at all.

[JeffHamm]

Nevertheless, I will still go with what Reid states in the article. There is no evidence from any other police officer who was involved in the investigation to support the belief that the heart had been taken away by the killer, not even in Bonds report to Anderson. In fact, there is no other evidence from any other police official to support the belief that the killer took away Kellys heart and Bonds post mortem report is ambiguous.

And not forgetting the fact that the killer who in my opinion did not remove the organs from the 2 other victims at the crime scenes adds corroboration to show that if Kelly was murdered by the same killer then he did not remove the heart and take it away from the Kelly crime scene.

Reid has to be a credible witness he was head of Whitechapel CID and attended the crime scene and for those who still suggest that in 1896 his memory had failed I refer them to the article in which he discusses the murders and in particular the part relative to the Kelly murder when he even recalls the nickname of the man who found the body. Now that proves his memory was still as good as ever or he had retained police documents and was using them as an aide memoire

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

That's all fine. My only point was much more modest in scope, simply pointing out that the Times article of the 12th cannot be put forth as support for your opinion. You can still rely on Reid's 1896 memoirs if you wish, but the Times article of Nov 12th, 1888, was retracted on Nov 13th, 1888.

Of course, because my opinion with regards to the taking of organs from Chapman's and Eddowes' crime scenes is the opposite of yours, the notion that he took Kelly's heart this time is not something I see as out of character. But that's tangential to the above point I was making.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have often wondered if the police tried keeping the removal of Mary's heart back from the press/public. We know it was widely reported that Kate's kidney had been removed and not found, and of course we have the Lusk letter from mid Oct on which we are still debating if it was a hoax or not today. If the police where not sure themselves and Mary's heart was later posted with a message, the police could determine with a fair amount of certainty that correspondence would be genuine. Plus they could compare the writing to the Lusk letter and other mail, thus possibly obtaining vital clues.

Just a thought Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

The Times 13th November:

"...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

- Jeff

"it is still confidently asserted" = Not conclusive

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The Times 13th November:

"...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

- Jeff

Nevertheless, I will still go with what Reid states in the article. There is no evidence from any other police officer who was involved in the investigation to support the belief that the heart had been taken away by the killer, not even in Bonds report to Anderson. In fact, there is no other evidence from any other police official to support the belief that the killer took away Kellys heart and Bonds post mortem report is ambiguous.

And not forgetting the fact that the killer who in my opinion did not remove the organs from the 2 other victims at the crime scenes adds corroboration to show that if Kelly was murdered by the same killer then he did not remove the heart and take it away from the Kelly crime scene.

Reid has to be a credible witness he was head of Whitechapel CID and attended the crime scene and for those who still suggest that in 1896 his memory had failed I refer them to the article in which he discusses the murders and in particular the part relative to the Kelly murder when he even recalls the nickname of the man who found the body. Now that proves his memory was still as good as ever or he had retained police documents and was using them as an aide memoire

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Its more supportable than the ambiguous post mortem report you quote from

and if researchers are prepared to accept the writings of Anderson, Swanson and Magnaghetn without question, why not Reid? and out of all of the officers involved in these murders he actually physically investigated the murder so if anyone knew the full facts surrounding the murder then it would have been him.

The Times 10th November
“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

The Times 12th November
“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Times 13th November:

"...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.



It is clear, I suggest, that the reason Bond did not state where the heart was to be found is that, unlike the viscera, it was never found.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anderson thought McKenzie's pipe was in Kelly's fireplace and that Abberline was looking exclusively for a Jewish murderer, Swanson had his seaside fantasy with a suspect dying 30 years early, and Smith thought Lawende was a hybrid German.

Reid made mistakes too.

I'm not saying he got it wrong when he pointed out to Anderson that Scotland Yard never decided that the murderer was a Jew, because that is obviously correct, but to say that no organs were taken away is not supportable.

Who else said so at the time?

Its more supportable than the ambiguous post mortem report you quote from

and if researchers are prepared to accept the writings of Anderson, Swanson and Magnaghetn without question, why not Reid? and out of all of the officers involved in these murders he actually physically investigated the murder so if anyone knew the full facts surrounding the murder then it would have been him.

The Times 10th November
“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

The Times 12th November
“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I refer you to the News of the World article date 1896 which carried an interview with Detective Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the Kelly crime scene

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anderson thought McKenzie's pipe was in Kelly's fireplace and that Abberline was looking exclusively for a Jewish murderer, Swanson had his seaside fantasy with a suspect dying 30 years early, and Smith thought Lawende was a hybrid German.

Reid made mistakes too.

I'm not saying he got it wrong when he pointed out to Anderson that Scotland Yard never decided that the murderer was a Jew, because that is obviously correct, but to say that no organs were taken away is not supportable.

Who else said so at the time?